The Monkey Trap

Many might be familiar with the concept of the monkey trap. It consists of a container with a tasty treat (such as a banana) inside, with a hole large enough for a monkey’s unclenched hand to go in, but not large enough for its fist (holding on to the treat) to come out.

Many a panicked, screeching simian has lost its freedom (or worse) all because the creature often lacked the insight or motivation to simply let go of the bait and flee before they got caught. And this simple device is often used metaphorically as a way to illustrate several life lessons for our own lives.

We’ve all heard of lessons such as, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch,” “If it looks too good to be true, it probably is,” or “It’s often the fear of losing something that overrides common sense,” etc. But the takeaway is that if we didn’t get tangled up in things that didn’t belong to us in the first place, we’d often be better off.

And maybe it’s also a reminder that as tempting as a piece of fruit might be, it can often lead to disastrous consequences.

Avoid the Acute Angle

Indeed, it behooves us to attempt to avoid the acute angles in life, and Scripture’s wisdom literature often speaks of the wise thoughtfully avoiding danger—juxtaposed with the foolish who rush in carelessly, stir up strife, and often suffer severe consequences. Indeed, as Scripture reminds us,

Whoever meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a passing dog by the ears. (Proverbs 26:17)

However, while avoiding trouble is sometimes a simple matter (taking the path of least resistance and not getting entangled in the first place), that often isn’t a viable option. As believers in a sin-cursed world, we are often confronted by situations where we must carefully analyze difficult intellectual, emotional, and physical challenges and then navigate as best we can towards a God-honoring result.

And this is especially true in matters that involve defending the faith—as attempting to take the easy way out when dealing with challenges instead of seeking God’s Word often leads to catastrophe.

Theistic Evolution—the Easy Way Out?

Indeed, in the area of biblical apologetics, the most blatant example of this is the overwhelming number of Christians that have welcomed the story of evolution (and its required millions of years timeframe) into their worldview, perceiving it as the simplest way of dealing with the so-called conflict between science and Scripture.

Some form of the question, “Couldn’t God have used evolution?” is likely one of the most commonly heard ways believers attempt to wave away the real and severe charges that atheist and skeptic groups use to attack the authority of God’s Word.

Couldn’t God have used evolution?

When the atheist challenges a Christian with the story of evolution as a way to dismiss the creator God of the Bible (i.e., science explains all of existence via naturalistic processes, which means no god required), the Christian just whips up a quick and easy answer (maybe God used evolution) to avoid the hard work of debunking the opponent’s argument.

It’s like a good old peanut butter and jam sandwich—you just wipe your theology on one side and your so-called science on the other—stick them together, take a big bite, and swallow.

However, this syncretism is actually poison to a solid, biblical faith as the corrupting effect of compromising the foundational teaching in Genesis then logically spreads throughout the entire body of Holy Scripture.

Such attempts to marry a naturalistic ideology with the Bible’s supernatural revelation only serve to reveal the utter shallowness of biblical understanding many believers have regarding the Genesis creation account, which is the seedbed of all Christian doctrines.

Did God Really Say?

So could God have used evolution to create? Regardless of your opinion as to a yes or no, the question is moot. The Bible isn’t about what God could or might have done—it’s about what he did do, revealed in Scripture by his own authoritative Word. It’s like asking if God could have used pink unicorns, scented candles, or candy corn to create. One could suppose so, but why would you? Where would you get the idea from the Bible that he did?

The same goes for evolution—it’s simply nowhere to be found in Scripture. That idea was imposed from outside the Bible, not from within. You see, far from going hand in hand, Genesis and the story of evolution aren’t compatible even on a surface level, let alone a deep and exegetical Scripture analysis.

For example, the timescale is off by orders of magnitude (a six-day creation of all things versus an evolving 14+ billion-year-old universe). And the mechanism is completely different—a very good creation from nothing (ex nihilo) versus billions of years of slow tinkering and refinement of crude organisms.

Also, the implications of a god’s moral character that would create using billions of years of death, suffering, and disease to bring about the world he called “very good” at its completion fly in the face of our loving creator, Jesus Christ.

A Field Test

My experience is that the quick and easy “God used evolution” solution employed by many believers will often blow up in your face when used against an informed opponent, and here’s a perfect example:

Atheist Jacques Monod (noted for his contributions in his field of molecular biology and philosophy), posed this conundrum to his theistic evolutionist interviewer, Mr. Laurie John, on an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, “The Secret of Life,” on June 10, 1976.

After explaining that the story of evolution was the main component of why he held to a completely naturalistic worldview, instead of showing the obvious scientific flaws and resultant moral bankruptcy, Laurie took the easy way out and proposed theistic evolution as a way to reconcile his views with Monod’s.

John: . . . one could conceive of God using randomness, just so long as there was the pattern which he was imposing upon the results of the chance mutations.

Monod: If you want to assume that, then I have no dispute with it, except one (which is not a scientific dispute, but a moral one). Namely, selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms . . . .

John: Cruel?

Monod: The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution.1

Monod was obviously a well-educated and eloquent individual, and not overly provocative or particularly hostile to his interviewer. However, his point is well taken and could have been stated in a much blunter fashion, such as:

So, despite the fact you agree that science has proven there are naturalistic, evolutionary processes that brought about the world we observe (and that the source of your belief—the Bible—as plainly written, contradicts that narrative), you still maintain belief in a god that must have used one of the most horrific processes imaginable to bring about life—including humans? Nice god you’ve got there . . .

Another way to put it would be, “What does ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ have to do with one another?” Try squirming your way out of that one. Mr. John certainly didn’t.

Still Not Working

Many decades after Monod’s statements were made, we can clearly see newer examples of this same argument as well—intelligent people putting two and two together when considering the natural world—without including the true history of the world (as revealed in Genesis 1–11).

A prime instance came about in 2015 when British comedian and actor Steven Fry was asked in an interview about his lack of belief in God and what he thinks he might say if he meets God someday (which he, of course, will).

While polite to some degree and not attacking or specifying any particular religion’s god, he does clearly articulate the philosophical underpinnings of atheistic thinking applied against belief in a creator God.

.[A]theism is not just about not believing there is a God, but on the assumption that there is one, what kind of God is he?2

And he unequivocally explained what he believes God would have to be like with his understanding of how life came about, and what his views towards such a God would be.

It is perfectly apparent. He is monstrous, utterly monstrous, and deserves no respect whatsoever . . . Why should I respect a capricious, mean minded, stupid God who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?3

The Crux of the Matter—Theodicy

His view is quite typical of those well-traveled, educated people who perceive beauty and goodness in the world while also seeing death and suffering everywhere, which leads to them wondering what kind of God would create a world with so much torment and anguish.

This issue of theodicy is one of the most-asked questions used to challenge the Christian worldview, usually framed in some variation of the question, “If you’ve got such a loving God, why is there so much death and suffering in the world?”

If you’ve got such a loving God, why is there so much death and suffering in the world?

And without the history revealed in the plain reading of Genesis, the best answer one could give is, “We really don’t know.” But 1 Peter 3:15 says we should have a reasoned faith and be able to give answers for it.

Indeed, if one accepts evolution as God’s creative mechanism, then the worst case would be the admission that God is directly to blame for death and suffering, as he actually used billions of years of death, suffering, extinction, pain, and diseases like cancer as his modus operandi so to speak, and even called it “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

Try asking a person who’s lost a loved one to cancer if they think it was very good. Once again, such views attack the character of God.

Who’s Thought This Through?

It has always shocked me that many professing followers of Jesus (who read the Bible, attend churches where the Word of God is expounded upon, and often talk passionately about God’s unbounding love), will (perhaps in fear of being perceived as anti-science, or as some pacifistic tactic when trying to witness to someone) seemingly unthinkingly blurt out, “Maybe God used evolution to create.”

Think this through. In a purely pragmatic sense, this tactic should have worked by now if it was sound, because many Christians have been throwing it around for years, and yet statistics continue to show that our current generation is the most atheistic we’ve ever seen since the founding of the Western nations.

However, it’s not as if atheists have never had the thought of theistic evolution cross their minds—it’s very much the opposite! Unlike the majority of Christians that propose this notion, many skeptics have thought this through very carefully and applied the logical conclusions directly to the gospel.

Respected Darwin historian Dr. Peter Bowler typified this when he said,

If Christians accepted that humanity was the product of evolution—even assuming the process could be seen as an expression of the Creator’s will—then the whole idea of Original Sin would have to be reinterpreted. Far from falling from an original state of grace in the Garden of Eden, we have risen gradually from our animal origins. And if there was no Sin from which we needed salvation, what was the purpose of Christ’s agony on the cross?4

And guess what? Christian theologians that are consistent with their evolutionary beliefs agree! One such professing Christian, recipient of the 1999 Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, Dr. Ian Barbour (professor emeritus at Carleton College), agrees with Bowler’s main points because of their unifying belief in the story of evolution.

You simply can’t any longer say as traditional Christians that death was God’s punishment for sin. Death was around long before human beings. Death is a necessary aspect of an evolutionary world . . . One generation has to die for new generations to come into being. In a way, it is more satisfying . . . than to see it as a sort of arbitrary punishment that God imposed on our primeval paradise.5

The Simple Truth

Can you see how the attempted integration of evolutionary storytelling into Scripture can quickly lead to more and more difficult theological traps (not taking the Bible at face value, making God the author of evil, having to explain away large portions of biblical text as analogous, abandoning biblical authority), all of which can logically culminate in people concluding heretical concepts, or worse, abandoning the faith completely?

Why not simply let go of the story of evolution and learn how to defend the truth of the Bible?

Why not simply let go of the story of evolution and learn how to defend the truth of the Bible? It’s so much easier. It’s not as if Scripture doesn’t have answers!

Scripture gives a clear and simple explanation to the question of death and suffering. Death and suffering weren’t part of God’s original creation. Rather, it was “very good” as Genesis 1 states—free from our present evils. It was when Adam and Eve sinned by willfully rebelling against God that death and suffering became infused into creation as a punishment for their disobedience, because a holy God must punish sin. As Scripture says,

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned. (Romans 5:12)

Death then, is the result of man’s sin, not God! Contrary to what Monod, Fry, Bowler, and a litany of atheistic thinkers have concluded, the misery in the world is indeed our fault because of sin—we were in Adam when he fell, and we have all willingly sinned. We can’t blame God for death and suffering.

However, thankfully, death and suffering aren’t to be a permanent condition. Jesus defeated the power of death through his own suffering and death on the cross and his victorious resurrection from the grave.

Revelation 21:4 reminds us that someday death and suffering will be completely done away with forever. And this is why we can have hope and comfort knowing that someday we will enjoy God forever in a perfectly restored, new creation.

Is Fulfilling 1 Peter 3:15 Easy?

Believers need to accept the fact that we are now trapped in a culture where the story of evolution has been promoted as fact and science for so many generations that it has become a dominant worldview with influence within and outside the church.

Avoiding the so-called conflict between science and the Bible cannot be sidestepped or dismissed. You will either have to defend the plain reading of Scripture in Genesis (which admittedly can take a lot of work) or exhaust yourself with endless interpretive incarnations, theological backflips, and metaphorical maneuvering to somehow make the story of evolution fit with the Bible. However, even though it may take real effort to build a solid understanding of Genesis as a foundation for your faith, the result will be a logical and consistent Christian worldview that honors God and makes sense of big issues like death and suffering, the meaning and purpose of life, and a coherent explanation of the world around us.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. (John 17:17)

The good news is that ministries like Answers in Genesis can provide you with professional, understandable, faith-building resources for theological and scientific study. These are available for all sorts of ages and aptitudes in a wide variety of media (web articles, books, curricula, and videos) to help you on your spiritual health journey.

On the other hand, should believers continue to attempt the “easy way out” excuse of accepting that God used millions of years of evolution (which isn’t easy at all), they’ll find themselves constantly attempting to dig themselves out of the theological hole they put themselves into, which will eventually collapse on them as an incoherent mess.

And unfortunately, the bad news is that there are numerous sources from professing Christian and skeptic groups that can assist you in deconstructing biblical authority. All of which will prove to be zero help to the cause of Christ—the promotion of the gospel.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions. (2 Timothy 4:3)

The Monkey Trap of Evolution

Rather than standing on the authority of God’s Word, which is the true easy way out for Christ followers, many Christians have grabbed hold of the main components of an atheistic and materialistic worldview and simply refuse to let go.

And the refusal to give it up means entrapment to atheistic philosophies that undermine the entire foundation of their own worldview and make them impotent in answering the skeptical questions of the day. Christians should take heed that the death grip of materialism has shattered many a once-professing believer’s faith in Christ as they become more consistent with its anti-biblical conclusions.

If you’re reading this but you still have questions about science, the Bible, faith, how all of these issues can be integrated coherently—I get it. Most Christians can’t answer questions about dinosaurs, dating methods, where the so-called races of people came from, or even questions such as, “Where did Cain get his wife?” from a biblical creationist view. And most churches and Bible colleges don’t provide them with those answers.

Start with God’s Word as a way to interpret the world around us.

But there are clear answers—if you are ready to put aside any evolutionary assumptions you may have and start with God’s Word as a way to interpret the world around us.

Just let go of the bait.

Whoever digs a pit will fall into it, and a stone will come back on him who starts it rolling. (Proverbs 26:27)